Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1487 (JHR)

Surendra Sao v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-21

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - It has been submitted that defect No. 4 has already been removed. 1. A. No. 6228 of 2017 2. Heard the parties. 3. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the instant application. 4. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 35 days in filing the instant application is hereby condoned. 6. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for exemption to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been returned back to the O.P. No. 2. 8. It has further been submitted that in view of the compromise, petitioner be exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 9. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that he does not have any objection since an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-has been received by him. 10. In view of the fact that compromise has been effected and situation being an exceptional circumstance, this application is allowed. Petitioner is exempted to surrender in terms of Rule 159 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 11. I.A. No. 6227 of 2017 is disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 682 of 2017 12. This application has been preferred against the judgment dated 3.1.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2014, whereby and where under judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 551 of 2011 on 9.5.2014, by which petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year, has been affirmed and compensation amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been reduced by the learned appellate court to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 13. Complaint case in brief is that an agreement was entered into with respect to sale purchase of land under khata No. 18, plot No. 361, area 0.9 decimals situated at Mauza Doiyadih, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma. It is stated that on the request of accused, Rs. 3,50,000/- has been reduced by the learned appellate court to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 13. Complaint case in brief is that an agreement was entered into with respect to sale purchase of land under khata No. 18, plot No. 361, area 0.9 decimals situated at Mauza Doiyadih, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma. It is stated that on the request of accused, Rs. 2,30,000/- was paid. Subsequently, it was detected that there was a family dispute with respect to the said land and ultimately a cheque was given in favour of O.P. No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-,which on being presented to the bank was dis-honored due to insufficiency of funds. A legal notice was sent by the complainant but in spite of the same, when the amount was not returned, complaint case being Complaint Case No. 551 of 2011 was filed. After conducting an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 cognizance was taken for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and trial proceeded. Since the prosecution had been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Koderma by judgment dated 9.5.2014 had convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and apart from sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year had also imposed a compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-.The petitioner had preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2014, which was dismissed on 3.1.2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma upholding the judgment of conviction but reduced compensation amount from Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-. 14. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that matter has been compromised between the parties and the amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- which was paid towards purchase of land, has been returned back to the O.P. No. 2., for which he has referred to I.A. No. 6227 of 2017. Learned counsel thus submits that since the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, which has been passed in appeal, be set aside. 15. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that since he has received an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-, he does not have any grievance against the petitioner. 16. Disputed amount of Rs. 15. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that since he has received an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/-, he does not have any grievance against the petitioner. 16. Disputed amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been paid by the O.P. No. 2 to the petitioner towards full and final consideration with respect to the land, which was purchased by the O.P. No. 2. The said amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been returned back by the petitioner to the O.P. No. 2 and as a result of which, she does not have any grievance against the petitioner. 17. On consideration of the aforesaid fact, this application is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 3.1.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2014, whereby and where-under judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Koderma in Complaint Case No. 551 of 2011 on 9.5.2014, whereby and where-under petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year, has been affirmed and compensation amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-has been reduced by the learned appellate court to Rs. 2,50,000/-, is hereby quashed and set aside.